I'm supposed to argue that I am a fool with nothing to contribute to philosophy. To do this, I will demonstrate that everyone is a fool without nothing to contribute to philosophy. Uccisore didn't talk about just the planet earth!!

If there are not an infinite number of souls going back in time, then there was a point where there were no souls, which means something came from, actually everything came from nothing at all, which is certainly original, but because it came from nothing at all, it is technically not OUR contribution. If there was only one soul that lived forever, and then created an infinite number of souls at some point in the timeline, there are still an infinite number of souls to be counted retroactively.

The statistical odds of an infinite number of planets with an infinite number of souls, not coming up with ideas we formed on earth in their exact formulations, is zero percent. Meaning: Nobody here has ever contributed to philosophy, myself included. That's the first part.

The second part deals with the concept that, as Uccisore put it, "A mentally deficient person; an idiot.", I must prove that I am this as well. To prove this, I will demonstrate that there is a necessary stratification of knowledge built into the structure of the universe, where each person is a fool relative to another person. This can easily be demonstrated by the fact that no being can count all the counting numbers, or even all of the referents as a single being, so division of intellect is a necessary component to our condition everywhere in the cosmos, even stretching back infinitely far in time. Because of this necessary division of intellect, relative to each other, we must by definition be idiots and mentally deficient, including me.

So to summarize, I cannot have added anything philosophically, and I must be an idiot who is mentally deficient. That's a decent start.

Worthwhile: Sufficiently valuable or important to be worth one's time, effort, or interest.

What Ecmandu has tried to argue is that nobody has anything original to say, because there are an infinite number of souls who have expressed an infinite number of things throughout time. I don't think this is true, but it's not necessary to refute that to refute Ecmandu's point. What we're here to discuss whether or not Ecmandu has anything worthwhile to contribute to philosophy, not anything original, and it should be obvious that something can be worthwhile without being original. When Aristotle gave us his form of logic, teaching this to the human race was absolutely worthwhile, even if some alien species millions of light years away already knew about it. Or to put it more in keeping with the definition above, Aristotle's logic is absolutely worthwhile to learn even if some alien species far away already knows about it, if you only have access to Aristotle. This is easily seen through personal example. If you wish to study medicine, is Gray's Anatomy a worthwhile text to read? Of course it is. The fact that other people have already read it, or that there might be some other book on Alpha Centauri (or even on Earth) that includes the same information simply has nothing to do with it. If Gray's Anatomy was poorly written, poorly researched, or just plain wrong about things compared to some other resource accessible to the same people, it may not be worthwhile then, but Ecmandu has not even attempted to show such a thing about his own contributions.

Contribute: 1: to give (something, such as money, goods, or time) to help a person, group, cause, or organization

2: to help to cause something to happen

3: to write (something, such as a story, poem, or essay) for a magazine

Again, there is nothing about originality here. Bringing the works of philosophy that you did not write yourself to some isolated tribe that has never been exposed to them, is no doubt a contribution. Is is a contibution to philosophy insofar as it spreads the knowledge of philosophy to places where it did not previously exist.

In order for Ecmandu to show that he has nothing worthwhile to say about philosophy, he must show not just that someone, somewhere in the cosmos has thought of his ideas, he must show that nobody interested in philosophy will benefit from hearing what he has to say- perhaps because his ideas are sufficiently terrible that hearing them spreads confusion and ignorance, or perhaps because they are so simplistic and derivative that the common man gains nothing from hearing them. This is what "Worthwhile to philosophy" means- originality on the cosmic stage has little to do with it. In order for him to show he has nothing worthwhile to contribute to philosophy, he must refute statements like this:

Ecmandu wrote:The statement at the bottom of my signature:

"Stratification of motivational systems towards conspicuous consumption cause all human ills - that was the most important statement you'll ever read in your life."

Now, the problem here, is that I'm the first person who said it, I actually formulated the most important sentence in human history...

Claims of his great, profound, and unique accomplishments which anybody reading this thread has no doubt seen him make multiple times all over the forums. That his great accomplishments are merely unique to humanity doesn't make them not worthwhile. Simply put, one cannot maintain statments like the above while also maintaining that one has nothing worthwhile to contribute to philosophy.

Ecmandu's second point is that everybody is a fool relative to somebody else. He accepts my definition of 'fool' as "a mentally deficient person, an idiot". 'Deficiency' isn't philosophical jargon with a specialized definition, so let us once again check the definition:

1: lacking in some necessary quality or element <deficient in judgment>

2: not up to a normal standard or complement : defective <deficient strength>

Emphasis added. I propose that merely lacking infinite knowledge in the way we all lack it is not sufficient for mental deficiency. In order for Ecmandu to show that he is mentally deficient, he must show that he has a lacking that brings him below what one would expect of a typical person, a mental lack that hinders his everyday function in a way that others aren't subject to. He must have a mental disorder or impairment that hinders his functioning below that of standard. It should be obvious that if we were to prove that if Isaac Newton were the second smartest human being that ever lived, he would not be mentally deficient according to the above definitions just because there is somebody even smarter than he.

Similarly, idiot is defined as such:

1 : a person affected with extreme mental retardation

2 : a foolish or stupid person

I think it would be too hard at this point for Ecmandu to prove that he is extremely mentally retarded (though he is certainly welcome to try). So let's be gracious and look at definition 2. Foolish is redundant, that's covered above. Stupid is all we really have to go on. Here again we find nothing like what Ecmandu has argued:

1. : not intelligent : having or showing a lack of ability to learn and understand things

2. : not sensible or logical

Clearly, showing that somewhere in the universe there are beings who know things that you don't know, or showing that you are unable to count to infinity, is not sufficient to show stupidity.

And anyway, all of these terms are relative. We would not call the smartest dog on earth a 'stupid fool' because it cannot grasp Wittgenstein. When a rat runs a maze in record time, we don't call the rat mentally deficient because it can't 'count all the counting numbers'. Ecmandu reguarly refers to himself as a super genius with unique mental capabilities. As anybody who has followed him knows, to HIM, he is the rat running the maze in record time. He is the smartest dog on Earth. One simply cannot maintain that while claiming to be an idiot as well.

In short, no argument of the form "Ecmandu is an idiot because everybody is an idiot" will work- idiocy is value judgment clearly comparing like to like. Ecmandu must show that he is an idiot among men. To show that he has nothing worthwhile to contribute to philosophy, he must show that those interested in philosophy have nothing worthwhile to gain by reading his words. He has not done this.

More importantly, he's never going to do this. If there's one thing Ecmandu believes more strongly than anything else, one thing he defends above all else, it is his own competency. Any argument coming from him about his own foolishness and lack of worthwhile contribution is going to be disingeuous- he will try to argue that according to some technicality of language everybody counts as some sort of 'fool' or that according to some twisted definition of 'contrbution', contributions are impossible in an infinite universe. In other words, he'll ignore or dodge a common sense understanding of the actual claim at stake. I will do no such thing- I will show, in plain English, using agreed-upon terminology, the truth of my position. Why? Because I actually believe it and am not trying to mislead anybody.

Is Ecmandu a Fool?

Here's what we know about him: He has an 8th-grade reading comphrension level at best. * He has no knowledge of technical terminology in philosophy, science, religion, or other fields he claims expertise in. * He resorts to hideously bad, juvenile, or transparently misleading tactics whenever shown to be wrong about the most trivial of matters. * He can operate a computer well enough to post on ILP. He can create YouTube videos.

Now, what can we say about the three asterisked points above? Notably, they can be faked. Who among you hasn't read Ecmandu's words and thought "There's no way anybody could be this stupid/irrational/crazy, he must be a troll." I submit this instinct is a reasonable one. Now, maybe he's a troll and maybe he isn't, but the odds are high enough that we have to concede claims about his idiocy are inconclusive, and indeed unprovable thanks to the anonymous nature of the internet. His ability to use a computer can't be faked (or he wouldn't be here), his ability to make a YouTube video must be sincere, or there would be no such video. This puts his intelligence at, minimally, somewhat below average for an adult, but not doesn't establish foolishness. He could always be faking his more foolish moments, and the harder he works to prove himself a fool, the more skeptical we must become of his sincerity. So I say it is just as likely that he is a troll of average or just-below average intellect, than that he's a true fool.

Does Ecmandu Have anything worthwhile to contribute to Philosophy?

Ecmandu has been seen arguing that positions must be true without knowing what those positions are. He has been seen making claims about sophisticated philosophical concepts (soundness, deduction, infinity, theism, etc.) while not knowing what they mean or the basics of what they entail. He has been seen defending his positions through references to his own magical powers, contacts in the spirit world, or unshown conversations with secret experts he will not name. He regularly changes the subject whenever a conversation isn't going his way, seems to delibrately mis-interpret other people's words, cites studies without reading their actual conclusions, and on and on and on. Ecmandu has something very worthwhile to contribute to philosophy- an object lesson in how not to do it. I've recieved private messages from people confiding in me that they see something of themselves in Ecmandu - when they were young, or under the influence, or otherwise at their worst, they behaved a bit like him. Perhaps not as badly, or as robustly terrible as Ecmandu, but enough so that they felt shame, and sought to improve themselves such that others wouldn't think of themselves as 'being that guy'. This is important. Edcuation through providing a negative example is a well known tool, both intentional and unintentional. In other academic persuits- science, engineering, art, war, you name it- we learn great lessons through the astounding failures and vice of others. Ecmandu is no different. I submit that people reading his words, seeing his behavior over a long span of time might be edified. They might be led to see the true importance of rational argument, civil discourse, falsifiable statements, good-faith debate, coherence of expression, attentive and charitable reading of opposing views, by seeing the travesty that results when these things are absent, as one witnesses in a typical conversation with Ecmandu.

Therefore, it cannot be established that Ecmandu is a fool, and he does indeed have something worthwhile to contribute to philosophy.

This is hilarious! First uccisore sets me up for the impossible task that if people vote that I won the debate I am banned and if he wins the debate I am banned, and then he says that my contribution to philosophy is what NOT to do.

I can be wiser than you, and not have an original idea, and it is original ideas which have "worthwhile" structure. When you first read a text book, it is the FIRST time you read it, original to the reader, and worthwhile. Therefor, it is originality to this extent which is worthwhile. As for the conundrum Uccisore thinks he has put me in, it is not me being wiser than him that is the issue at hand, but whether I contributed anything worthwhile to philosophy (as was just spoken before, new). I argue that I have not added anything new, and therefor not worthwhile to philosophy in general, which is the sense Uccisore originally intended it, he didn't for example say, Ecmandu hasn't contributed anything worthwhile to earthly philosophy, just philosophy in general. Because of this, I can actually win the debate, (be wiser than Uccisore), and not be banned, excluding me from the conundrum he placed me in, without having contributed anything worthwhile to philosophy in general.

I did not set up Ecmandu with an impossible task, he chose this task for himself, agreed to it's terms, and asked Carleas to create this thread to make it official after seeing those terms. If winning this debate is impossible for him, then he ought to concede defeat and accept the consequences of such.

One of the terms of the debate was that I got to choose the subject. I have done so, and in choosing the subject of the debate I of course get to choose what is meant by the subject. If he wanted the freedom to stipulate what key terms such as 'worthwhile' meant, he should have chosen the subject of the debate. Now, I could have been cruel about that. Instead, I am using straightforward definitions easily accessible to all, nothing mischevious or obtuse. I even made sure he knew the definition of 'fool' I had in mind before the debate began, so there is really no excuse for him to try and tell me what I mean by my own words. Being worthwhile does not require originality. This is clear from the definition of the term, clear from our experience of its usage, and clear from the examples I gave which he has not addressed. Aristotle's contribution to logic is worthwhile even if aliens a billion years ago thought of it, Gray's Anatomy is worthwhile to study even if there are other sources for anatomy. Teaching people about philosophy who didn't previously know is a contribution to philosophy even if what you taught was already known by others. He has not meaningfully disputed any of this.

Is something worthwhile to a reader only the first time they read it? I don't think so. I think we all have had the expeience of getting new things from good texts upon repeated exposure. But even if this were true, it wouldn't show Ecmandu has nothing worth contributing, as there are of course so many people yet to be exposed to his works for the first time. What's more, 'worthwhile to contribute' clearly includes the future tense- who knows what he may write tomorrow that none of us have been exposed to yet!

I have no interest in if Ecmandu is 'wiser than me', and I have no idea why he brought it up. It's not the subject of the debate. However, if he does claim to be wiser than me, then I'll take this as at least some evidence against his position that he is a fool. I wonder if he has forgotten which side he is arguing.

I notice Ecmandu has utterly and completely ignored the portion of my argument concerning his foolishness (or lack thereof).

He has also done nothing to refute my argument that he has contributed to philosophy by means of counter example, and done nothing to refute my argument that it cannot be determined whether or not he is a troll.

I will reiterate my points since he has not even began to reply to them; It cannot be reliably determined if he is a troll as opposed to a letigimate fool, and he has contributed to philosophy by means of counter example.

Uccisore wrote:I did not set up Ecmandu with an impossible task, he chose this task for himself, agreed to it's terms, and asked Carleas to create this thread to make it official after seeing those terms. If winning this debate is impossible for him, then he ought to concede defeat and accept the consequences of such.

One of the terms of the debate was that I got to choose the subject. I have done so, and in choosing the subject of the debate I of course get to choose what is meant by the subject. If he wanted the freedom to stipulate what key terms such as 'worthwhile' meant, he should have chosen the subject of the debate. Now, I could have been cruel about that. Instead, I am using straightforward definitions easily accessible to all, nothing mischevious or obtuse. I even made sure he knew the definition of 'fool' I had in mind before the debate began, so there is really no excuse for him to try and tell me what I mean by my own words. Being worthwhile does not require originality. This is clear from the definition of the term, clear from our experience of its usage, and clear from the examples I gave which he has not addressed. Aristotle's contribution to logic is worthwhile even if aliens a billion years ago thought of it, Gray's Anatomy is worthwhile to study even if there are other sources for anatomy. Teaching people about philosophy who didn't previously know is a contribution to philosophy even if what you taught was already known by others. He has not meaningfully disputed any of this.

Is something worthwhile to a reader only the first time they read it? I don't think so. I think we all have had the expeience of getting new things from good texts upon repeated exposure. But even if this were true, it wouldn't show Ecmandu has nothing worth contributing, as there are of course so many people yet to be exposed to his works for the first time. What's more, 'worthwhile to contribute' clearly includes the future tense- who knows what he may write tomorrow that none of us have been exposed to yet!

I have no interest in if Ecmandu is 'wiser than me', and I have no idea why he brought it up. It's not the subject of the debate. However, if he does claim to be wiser than me, then I'll take this as at least some evidence against his position that he is a fool. I wonder if he has forgotten which side he is arguing.

I notice Ecmandu has utterly and completely ignored the portion of my argument concerning his foolishness (or lack thereof).

He has also done nothing to refute my argument that he has contributed to philosophy by means of counter example, and done nothing to refute my argument that it cannot be determined whether or not he is a troll.

I will reiterate my points since he has not even began to reply to them; It cannot be reliably determined if he is a troll as opposed to a letigimate fool, and he has contributed to philosophy by means of counter example.

Honestly, I see no evidence that he's even read 75% of my rebuttal.

I read your rebuttal. For the old to be worthwhile, it must be new to the person encountering it, in the instance of reading a book twice they get something new from it. In the instance of someone repeating something that has already been said, the new is not in the value of the person saying it, but in the person receiving it Therefor the worthwhile is the new. Sorry i didn't clear this up in the last post. Being wiser than you has nothing to do with the stipulations of the OP, which is that I'm an idiot with nothing to contribute philosophically. I argue that because there is a division of knowledge, relative to each other we have different specializations and are also all idiots to each other because of this. My specialization is being wiser than you, but that does not mean I'm not an idiot. I intentionally let you give me this impossible situation to wreak the most humiliation on you possible Uccisore, I saw your game plan, that if I won the votes I'd be kicked off the boards, and if I lost the votes I'd be kicked off the boards... I thought it was hilarious even after that, that you defined me as having a philosophical contribution of what NOT to do. So here we are, debating these points, you holding every possible card, and the possibility of me winning the debate... that was my plan all along.

Defending your choice to engage in this debate is not the subject of the debate. I must ask you, again, to actually engage the points I'm making.

It is false that something must be new to the person reading it to be worthwhile. I think we all know better than this- we re-read poetry, novels that we like, old love letters, and it is worthwhile. Last I heard, my aunt re-reads Stephen King's "The Stand" every year or so, and she would tell you it's worthwhile to her each and every time. So you're saying something with no evidence to back it up that goes against our every day experience.

However, even if it were true that for something to be worthwhile it must be new to the person reading it, then it still may be the case that you have something to offer philosophy. Not everybody has read your words, and new people are born everyday that could benefit from your examples of how not to do philosophy.

It seems you are already running out of steam. You only gave me a single line of relevant discourse this time, and you still have almost the entirety of my first rebuttal to reply to.

Uccisore wrote:Defending your choice to engage in this debate is not the subject of the debate. I must ask you, again, to actually engage the points I'm making.

It is false that something must be new to the person reading it to be worthwhile. I think we all know better than this- we re-read poetry, novels that we like, old love letters, and it is worthwhile. Last I heard, my aunt re-reads Stephen King's "The Stand" every year or so, and she would tell you it's worthwhile to her each and every time. So you're saying something with no evidence to back it up that goes against our every day experience.

However, even if it were true that for something to be worthwhile it must be new to the person reading it, then it still may be the case that you have something to offer philosophy. Not everybody has read your words, and new people are born everyday that could benefit from your examples of how not to do philosophy.

It seems you are already running out of steam. You only gave me a single line of relevant discourse this time, and you still have almost the entirety of my first rebuttal to reply to.

I already replied to it, when someone re-reads something, it is new for them. I said that in the post you responded to, so I suppose I could use your old line and say you didn't read my post. (Even though I read all of your posts through and through)... You constantly use vicious and unwarranted ad homs against posters on this board. I am that revenge. You have specifically stalked me personally... so I took it personally. But basically you are arguing against your personality here Uccisore, do you really think you'll win this debate on logical or grounds of perception of Uccisore?

You have barely addressed my OP, but I have gone out of my way to refute your posts.

Ecmandu wrote:I already replied to it, when someone re-reads something, it is new for them.

If when somebody re-reads something, it is new to them, then it could be worthwhile to them as well. If something could be worthwhile to someone despite having seen it before, then your criteria of originality being needed for worthwhile-ness has been refuted; though I must remind you that by definition and by example it was never shown to be a solid criteria in the first place.

Thus, it is as I've said- you have something worthwhile to contribute to philosophy (in the form of counter example) despite the fact that by your admission you have no original ideas. And anyway, it hardly matters- counter-examples aren't worthwhile as a function of their originality anyway. Part of what makes your writings such good counter-examples of philosophy is the fact that you're saying derivative things that other people have said before without realizing it.

As Ecmandu has declared he's already replied to the rest of my rebuttal, and he gave me only 8 words of substance to reply to this time (which I had already previously addressed), I ask for a moderator to declare that Ecmandu is conceding by default: Ecmandu cannot be shown to be a fool as opposed to a troll, and he has something worthwhile to contribute to philosophy by way of counter-example. He has ceased even attempting to refute my points or defend his, and is merely talking now to keep the thread going.

Ecmandu wrote:I already replied to it, when someone re-reads something, it is new for them.

If when somebody re-reads something, it is new to them, then it could be worthwhile to them as well. If something could be worthwhile to someone despite having seen it before, then your criteria of originality being needed for worthwhile-ness has been refuted; though I must remind you that by definition and by example it was never shown to be a solid criteria in the first place.

Thus, it is as I've said- you have something worthwhile to contribute to philosophy (in the form of counter example) despite the fact that by your admission you have no original ideas. And anyway, it hardly matters- counter-examples aren't worthwhile as a function of their originality anyway. Part of what makes your writings such good counter-examples of philosophy is the fact that you're saying derivative things that other people have said before without realizing it.

As Ecmandu has declared he's already replied to the rest of my rebuttal, and he gave me only 8 words of substance to reply to this time (which I had already previously addressed), I ask for a moderator to declare that Ecmandu is conceding by default: Ecmandu cannot be shown to be a fool as opposed to a troll, and he has something worthwhile to contribute to philosophy by way of counter-example. He has ceased even attempting to refute my points or defend his, and is merely talking now to keep the thread going.

I get that Uccisore, but my point is that the new is the worthwhile, and my point is that in GENERAL, nothing is new in GENERAL, therefor, nothing is worthwhile in GENERAL. You didn't specify things about earth or individuals etc... you just spoke about philosophy in GENERAL! Those were the conditions of your perameters. That's the box you put yourself into, just like the neat little box you thought you put me into. I'm using your own techniques to debate you, and I'm not trolling... I can't believe you actually called a Mod in for this in debate forums.

I'm not a troll, and I'm wiser than you, but still a fool. That is not logically inconsistent.

You have done nothing to show that newness is required for worthwhile-ness, you have merely asserted it without argument. I have given counter arguments and counter-examples, you have ignored them. You have have not addressed my argument that you may be a troll for all we know. You have not addressed my argument that you contribute by virtue of counter example. You are giving me one sentence at a time to reply to like this is a schoolyard argument instead of a debate, you have ignored almost everything I've said.

I assert you are not meeting the standards of the Chamber of Debate, which was one of the criteria OF this debate.

Uccisore wrote:You have done nothing to show that newness is required for worthwhile-ness, you have merely asserted it without argument. I have given counter arguments and counter-examples, you have ignored them. You have have not addressed my argument that you may be a troll for all we know. You have not addressed my argument that you contribute by virtue of counter example. You are giving me one sentence at a time to reply to like this is a schoolyard argument instead of a debate, you have ignored almost everything I've said.

I assert you are not meeting the standards of the Chamber of Debate, which was one of the criteria OF this debate.

I will wait to see what Carleas says.

I have given argument. You think being verbose is the key to debate. It's not, you wrote a lot of fluff. When you did respond to my points, I didn't just assert, I proved that newness is necessary for worthwhileness (it's even necessary for existence)... by refuting argument after argument that you provided of newness not being a function of worthwhileness. This is an interesting road you took... so I humored it. You actually really didn't address much of my OP at all, but I'm playing along. Remember, you went into this debate holding ALL THE CARDS... so be very careful what you think is trolling, we set it up that way because you needed a handicap.

Uccisore wrote:Worthwhile: Sufficiently valuable or important to be worth one's time, effort, or interest.

What Ecmandu has tried to argue is that nobody has anything original to say, because there are an infinite number of souls who have expressed an infinite number of things throughout time. I don't think this is true, but it's not necessary to refute that to refute Ecmandu's point. What we're here to discuss whether or not Ecmandu has anything worthwhile to contribute to philosophy, not anything original, and it should be obvious that something can be worthwhile without being original. When Aristotle gave us his form of logic, teaching this to the human race was absolutely worthwhile, even if some alien species millions of light years away already knew about it. Or to put it more in keeping with the definition above, Aristotle's logic is absolutely worthwhile to learn even if some alien species far away already knows about it, if you only have access to Aristotle. This is easily seen through personal example. If you wish to study medicine, is Gray's Anatomy a worthwhile text to read? Of course it is. The fact that other people have already read it, or that there might be some other book on Alpha Centauri (or even on Earth) that includes the same information simply has nothing to do with it. If Gray's Anatomy was poorly written, poorly researched, or just plain wrong about things compared to some other resource accessible to the same people, it may not be worthwhile then, but Ecmandu has not even attempted to show such a thing about his own contributions.

Contribute: 1: to give (something, such as money, goods, or time) to help a person, group, cause, or organization

2: to help to cause something to happen

3: to write (something, such as a story, poem, or essay) for a magazine

Again, there is nothing about originality here. Bringing the works of philosophy that you did not write yourself to some isolated tribe that has never been exposed to them, is no doubt a contribution. Is is a contibution to philosophy insofar as it spreads the knowledge of philosophy to places where it did not previously exist.

In order for Ecmandu to show that he has nothing worthwhile to say about philosophy, he must show not just that someone, somewhere in the cosmos has thought of his ideas, he must show that nobody interested in philosophy will benefit from hearing what he has to say- perhaps because his ideas are sufficiently terrible that hearing them spreads confusion and ignorance, or perhaps because they are so simplistic and derivative that the common man gains nothing from hearing them. This is what "Worthwhile to philosophy" means- originality on the cosmic stage has little to do with it. In order for him to show he has nothing worthwhile to contribute to philosophy, he must refute statements like this:

Ecmandu wrote:The statement at the bottom of my signature:

"Stratification of motivational systems towards conspicuous consumption cause all human ills - that was the most important statement you'll ever read in your life."

Now, the problem here, is that I'm the first person who said it, I actually formulated the most important sentence in human history...

Claims of his great, profound, and unique accomplishments which anybody reading this thread has no doubt seen him make multiple times all over the forums. That his great accomplishments are merely unique to humanity doesn't make them not worthwhile. Simply put, one cannot maintain statments like the above while also maintaining that one has nothing worthwhile to contribute to philosophy.

Ecmandu's second point is that everybody is a fool relative to somebody else. He accepts my definition of 'fool' as "a mentally deficient person, an idiot". 'Deficiency' isn't philosophical jargon with a specialized definition, so let us once again check the definition:

1: lacking in some necessary quality or element <deficient in judgment>

2: not up to a normal standard or complement : defective <deficient strength>

Emphasis added. I propose that merely lacking infinite knowledge in the way we all lack it is not sufficient for mental deficiency. In order for Ecmandu to show that he is mentally deficient, he must show that he has a lacking that brings him below what one would expect of a typical person, a mental lack that hinders his everyday function in a way that others aren't subject to. He must have a mental disorder or impairment that hinders his functioning below that of standard. It should be obvious that if we were to prove that if Isaac Newton were the second smartest human being that ever lived, he would not be mentally deficient according to the above definitions just because there is somebody even smarter than he.

Similarly, idiot is defined as such:

1 : a person affected with extreme mental retardation

2 : a foolish or stupid person

I think it would be too hard at this point for Ecmandu to prove that he is extremely mentally retarded (though he is certainly welcome to try). So let's be gracious and look at definition 2. Foolish is redundant, that's covered above. Stupid is all we really have to go on. Here again we find nothing like what Ecmandu has argued:

1. : not intelligent : having or showing a lack of ability to learn and understand things

2. : not sensible or logical

Clearly, showing that somewhere in the universe there are beings who know things that you don't know, or showing that you are unable to count to infinity, is not sufficient to show stupidity.

And anyway, all of these terms are relative. We would not call the smartest dog on earth a 'stupid fool' because it cannot grasp Wittgenstein. When a rat runs a maze in record time, we don't call the rat mentally deficient because it can't 'count all the counting numbers'. Ecmandu reguarly refers to himself as a super genius with unique mental capabilities. As anybody who has followed him knows, to HIM, he is the rat running the maze in record time. He is the smartest dog on Earth. One simply cannot maintain that while claiming to be an idiot as well.

In short, no argument of the form "Ecmandu is an idiot because everybody is an idiot" will work- idiocy is value judgment clearly comparing like to like. Ecmandu must show that he is an idiot among men. To show that he has nothing worthwhile to contribute to philosophy, he must show that those interested in philosophy have nothing worthwhile to gain by reading his words. He has not done this.

More importantly, he's never going to do this. If there's one thing Ecmandu believes more strongly than anything else, one thing he defends above all else, it is his own competency. Any argument coming from him about his own foolishness and lack of worthwhile contribution is going to be disingeuous- he will try to argue that according to some technicality of language everybody counts as some sort of 'fool' or that according to some twisted definition of 'contrbution', contributions are impossible in an infinite universe. In other words, he'll ignore or dodge a common sense understanding of the actual claim at stake. I will do no such thing- I will show, in plain English, using agreed-upon terminology, the truth of my position. Why? Because I actually believe it and am not trying to mislead anybody.

Is Ecmandu a Fool?

Here's what we know about him: He has an 8th-grade reading comphrension level at best. * He has no knowledge of technical terminology in philosophy, science, religion, or other fields he claims expertise in. * He resorts to hideously bad, juvenile, or transparently misleading tactics whenever shown to be wrong about the most trivial of matters. * He can operate a computer well enough to post on ILP. He can create YouTube videos.

Now, what can we say about the three asterisked points above? Notably, they can be faked. Who among you hasn't read Ecmandu's words and thought "There's no way anybody could be this stupid/irrational/crazy, he must be a troll." I submit this instinct is a reasonable one. Now, maybe he's a troll and maybe he isn't, but the odds are high enough that we have to concede claims about his idiocy are inconclusive, and indeed unprovable thanks to the anonymous nature of the internet. His ability to use a computer can't be faked (or he wouldn't be here), his ability to make a YouTube video must be sincere, or there would be no such video. This puts his intelligence at, minimally, somewhat below average for an adult, but not doesn't establish foolishness. He could always be faking his more foolish moments, and the harder he works to prove himself a fool, the more skeptical we must become of his sincerity. So I say it is just as likely that he is a troll of average or just-below average intellect, than that he's a true fool.

Does Ecmandu Have anything worthwhile to contribute to Philosophy?

Ecmandu has been seen arguing that positions must be true without knowing what those positions are. He has been seen making claims about sophisticated philosophical concepts (soundness, deduction, infinity, theism, etc.) while not knowing what they mean or the basics of what they entail. He has been seen defending his positions through references to his own magical powers, contacts in the spirit world, or unshown conversations with secret experts he will not name. He regularly changes the subject whenever a conversation isn't going his way, seems to delibrately mis-interpret other people's words, cites studies without reading their actual conclusions, and on and on and on. Ecmandu has something very worthwhile to contribute to philosophy- an object lesson in how not to do it. I've recieved private messages from people confiding in me that they see something of themselves in Ecmandu - when they were young, or under the influence, or otherwise at their worst, they behaved a bit like him. Perhaps not as badly, or as robustly terrible as Ecmandu, but enough so that they felt shame, and sought to improve themselves such that others wouldn't think of themselves as 'being that guy'. This is important. Edcuation through providing a negative example is a well known tool, both intentional and unintentional. In other academic persuits- science, engineering, art, war, you name it- we learn great lessons through the astounding failures and vice of others. Ecmandu is no different. I submit that people reading his words, seeing his behavior over a long span of time might be edified. They might be led to see the true importance of rational argument, civil discourse, falsifiable statements, good-faith debate, coherence of expression, attentive and charitable reading of opposing views, by seeing the travesty that results when these things are absent, as one witnesses in a typical conversation with Ecmandu.

Therefore, it cannot be established that Ecmandu is a fool, and he does indeed have something worthwhile to contribute to philosophy.

Let's go through this whole damn thing, since it is your post that you said I didn't respond to.

The value comes from the newness not the person conveying the knowledge (as we've already been through).

We all have specializations that other do not, so we are all idiots relative to each other.

We know that in the context of idiocy which we all have, some can be smarter and wiser than others, though we are all idiots, and that's not a contradiction.

And we can conclude that your PMer's were idiots. I am wiser than you or them. Actually much wiser, but in terms of cosmic philosophy, I claim nothing new, and therefor nothing worthwhile in the GENERAL sense. Which is the only hole you left yourself with uccisore. So I can prove that we are all idiots, and I can prove that we have no new ideas... but you haven't traversed that aspect with me (probably because you don't have the spatial IQ to understand infinity). But be my guest and prove me wrong.

Ecmandu wrote:Let's go through this whole damn thing, since it is your post that you said I didn't respond to.

The value comes from the newness not the person conveying the knowledge (as we've already been through).

That is an assertion with no argument to back it.

If by 'the value' you mean 'worthwhileness', this is false. People can gain something worthwhile from experiences that are not new, or are not new to them. I have given examples that you have not addressed. Here is another example:

If some far away species invented concept X before we did, it is unique to the universe and has unique inplications by virtue of the fact that they did it. When humans eventually invent concept X it has new implications by virtue of the fact that we did it. Was it a man or a woman? In what nation? Why did it take us so long, or why did it take other species so much longer? There are implications there, there is meaningful content there that is only a function of this unique event happening to the human race. These questions and their answers are all unique contributions to philosophy that could not be addressed in any other way, even in an infinite universe.

Just because an idea isn't new to the universe doesn't mean it's recurrence isn't uniquely worthwhile.

We all have specializations that other do not, so we are all idiots relative to each other.

Stupid:1: not intelligent : having or showing a lack of ability to learn and understand things2: not sensible or logical

Just because somebody has a specialization we lack, does not mean we lack an ability to learn and understand things, and it does not mean we are not sensible or logical. Einstein was not an idiot just because he couldn't play Tetris or perform eye surgery. Nobody uses the word 'idiot' in that way, you are creating a brand new definition of a term of common speech for no purpose but to try and win this debate, just as you are doing with 'worthwhile'. Simply put, being ignorant of some specialized field does not make one an idiot. Furthermore, 'we all have specializations that others do not' is probably false. There are children and true mentally retarded people that apparently have no specializations.

We know that in the context of idiocy which we all have, some can be smarter and wiser than others, though we are all idiots, and that's not a contradiction.

It is plainly that sense of 'some can be smarter and wiser than others' to which the term 'idiot' applies, not to this odd, context-free sense which you are trying to invent for the purposes of this conversation. I am not inventing new definitions for these terms, there's no reason for you to do so - especially since this is my subject we're debating. I'll tell you what is meant by 'worthwhile' and 'foolish', that is one of the conditions of this debate, and indeed I have done so. If you can't win with the definitions I've provided- which I stress are merely standard and not twisted in any way as you are trying to do- , you can't win.

And we can conclude that your PMer's were idiots. I am wiser than you or them. Actually much wiser, but in terms of cosmic philosophy,

If I believed the above, it would be evidence that you are a troll and not a fool, which supports my argument.

I claim nothing new, and therefor nothing worthwhile in the GENERAL sense.

It doesn't matter. Since you are worthwhile by virtue of counter-example, it is in what you do wrong that you contribute to philosophy. You claim to be contributing nothing new? I already know that. I already know your philosphical ideas are all either accidentally ripped off from sources you are unaware of or else nonsense. But people can still observe the way you argue, the way you misrepresent facts, change the subject, read inattentively and all the rest that you are known for, and thereby learn how not to do philosophy- which is precisely the sense in which I claim you are worthwhile. This is worthwhile in a way that is completely beyond your control. Even though the ways in which you are a bad example are not original, it is still significant that you are a bad example here and now. Nobody else is having this preposterous debate with me, trying to prove their own idiocy in order to save face. It is a way that you, as an object lesson in how not to behave, are uniquely worthwhile to philosophy.

And that addresses your entire post. Do you still think I'm trolling?

I think it's entirely possible. Possible enough that it can't be conclusively argued that you are as idiotic as you behave.

If by 'the value' you mean 'worthwhileness', this is false. People can gain something worthwhile from experiences that are not new, or are not new to them. I have given examples that you have not addressed. Here is another example:

If some far away species invented concept X before we did, it is unique to the universe and has unique inplications by virtue of the fact that they did it. When humans eventually invent concept X it has new implications by virtue of the fact that we did it. Was it a man or a woman? In what nation? Why did it take us so long, or why did it take other species so much longer? There are implications there, there is meaningful content there that is only a function of this unique event happening to the human race. These questions and their answers are all unique contributions to philosophy that could not be addressed in any other way, even in an infinite universe.

Just because an idea isn't new to the universe doesn't mean it's recurrence isn't uniquely worthwhile.

Ecmandu writes: Every moment is new. End of debate. Do you want to get into the A=A paradox and the A/=A paradox here? The fact that they live together with each other? Do you even know what you're talking about?

Stupid:1: not intelligent : having or showing a lack of ability to learn and understand things2: not sensible or logical

Just because somebody has a specialization we lack, does not mean we lack an ability to learn and understand things, and it does not mean we are not sensible or logical. Einstein was not an idiot just because he couldn't play Tetris or perform eye surgery. Nobody uses the word 'idiot' in that way, you are creating a brand new definition of a term of common speech for no purpose but to try and win this debate, just as you are doing with 'worthwhile'. Simply put, being ignorant of some specialized field does not make one an idiot. Furthermore, 'we all have specializations that others do not' is probably false. There are children and true mentally retarded people that apparently have no specializations.

Ecmandu writes: It does mean they are not sensible or logical IN THAT WAY!!!

Uccisore writes:

It is plainly that sense of 'some can be smarter and wiser than others' to which the term 'idiot' applies, not to this odd, context-free sense which you are trying to invent for the purposes of this conversation. I am not inventing new definitions for these terms, there's no reason for you to do so - especially since this is my subject we're debating. I'll tell you what is meant by 'worthwhile' and 'foolish', that is one of the conditions of this debate, and indeed I have done so. If you can't win with the definitions I've provided- which I stress are merely standard and not twisted in any way as you are trying to do- , you can't win.

Ecmandu writes:

I know you're stupid when it comes to DNA sequencing (which involves holding millions of variables in your head at once). Not only haven't you studied it, if you did, it wouldn't stick. But you being Uccisore, would argue that it does.

Uccisore writes:

It doesn't matter. Since you are worthwhile by virtue of counter-example, it is in what you do wrong that you contribute to philosophy. You claim to be contributing nothing new? I already know that. I already know your philosphical ideas are all either accidentally ripped off from sources you are unaware of or else nonsense. But people can still observe the way you argue, the way you misrepresent facts, change the subject, read inattentively and all the rest that you are known for, and thereby learn how not to do philosophy- which is precisely the sense in which I claim you are worthwhile. This is worthwhile in a way that is completely beyond your control. Even though the ways in which you are a bad example are not original, it is still significant that you are a bad example here and now. Nobody else is having this preposterous debate with me, trying to prove their own idiocy in order to save face. It is a way that you, as an object lesson in how not to behave, are uniquely worthwhile to philosophy.

Ecmandu replies:

There is no counter example. Nobody, including you, contributes nothing new in the GENERAL sense. You have to argue infinity to argue against this. You cannot distinguish between the microcosm and the macrocosm, which makes you look stupid. Go back and read your definition.

Ecmandu writes: Every moment is new. End of debate. Do you want to get into the A=A paradox and the A/=A paradox here? The fact that they live together with each other? Do you even know what you're talking about?

That's it? No substantial reply? Yes, if you think this A/=A paradox will contain a rebuttal to my claims, let us get into it by all means. Why would you even hold back or ask me that? Let me repeat my point in simpler english since you haven't bothered to address it:

Just because a philosophical idea proposed is not original doesn't mean the proposition itself isn't original or worthwhile. If I say something that somebody else has said before, the fact that I said it when and where I said it may be a unique contribution to philosophy. Therefore your argument that there are no unique contributions to philosophy just because every idea has already been said is false.

And again, you still haven't defended your position that uniquemess is necessary for worthwhileness in the first place. This is plainly false.

Ecmandu writes: It does mean they are not sensible or logical IN THAT WAY!!!

"That way" is just a way you made up in order to score points in this debate, and I'm not having it. A person is not illogical or unable to understand information or stupid because they have learned some particular skill instead of another. Again: Einstein was not an idiot because he couldn't perform eye surgery. Einstein's inability to perform eye-surgery did not mean he was 'not sensible or logical' in any way. Nobody uses 'idiot' in that way, the dictionary definition I gave you doesn't use it in that way, you are plainly trying to make up new definitions of well understood words to win a debate.

Ecmandu writes:

I know you're stupid when it comes to DNA sequencing (which involves holding millions of variables in your head at once). Not only haven't you studied it, if you did, it wouldn't stick. But you being Uccisore, would argue that it does.

Irrelevant to the portion of my post you quoted. I am repeating my point because you failed to address it: You let me define the subject of the debate. As such, I get to define the terms in the subject. I have used standard definitions, so those ARE the definitions we are debating. If you can't demonstrate that you foolish and have nothing worthwhile to contribute to philosophy using the definitions of the terms provided by Webster, then you can't win this debate.

Uccisore writes:

It doesn't matter. Since you are worthwhile by virtue of counter-example, it is in what you do wrong that you contribute to philosophy. You claim to be contributing nothing new? I already know that. I already know your philosphical ideas are all either accidentally ripped off from sources you are unaware of or else nonsense. But people can still observe the way you argue, the way you misrepresent facts, change the subject, read inattentively and all the rest that you are known for, and thereby learn how not to do philosophy- which is precisely the sense in which I claim you are worthwhile. This is worthwhile in a way that is completely beyond your control. Even though the ways in which you are a bad example are not original, it is still significant that you are a bad example here and now. Nobody else is having this preposterous debate with me, trying to prove their own idiocy in order to save face. It is a way that you, as an object lesson in how not to behave, are uniquely worthwhile to philosophy.

Ecmandu replies:

There is no counter example. Nobody, including you, contributes nothing new in the GENERAL sense. You have to argue infinity to argue against this. You cannot distinguish between the microcosm and the macrocosm, which makes you look stupid. Go back and read your definition.

There is nothing about counter examples in my writing above. There is nothing about contributions in the general sense in the above. Your comment on microcosm and macrocosm does not address anything I said above. You didn't reply to the above portion of my post you quoted at all, in fact. What you wrote is a complete non-sequitor to what I wrote. You're just chopping up your brief reply and spreading quotes of mine between it to make it look like you're addressing my points when you aren't. Clear behavior of a troll.

My point stands- you contribute to philosophy by being an example of what not to do. The uniqueness of your ideas has little to do with it. If anything, the less unique your ideas are, the better an example of what not to do you become. Nevertheless, you are a unique example, in that you are here and now, and no other bad example is.

Actually the macrocosm and mircrocosm is EVERYTHING for this portion of the debate. You said that I couldn't contribute anything philosophically... (though in this debate you say my contribution is what NOT to do).. I argue that on the macrocosm, (you didn't say my contribution on earth or your contribution on earth - the microcosm), you said PHILOSOPHY as whole, the macrocosm. And for this you HAVE to argue an unbound infinity, not those microcosmic arguments you are making, and actually with these microcosmic arguments you are trolling, which is why I constructed the OP EXACTLY the way I constructed it.

Oh and by the way... Einstien was called an idiot most of his life by everyone, and most of his life by many, and to this day, people still call him an idiot. Ghandi was once quoted as saying "I thank God for not giving me Einteins brain"

Ecmandu wrote:Actually the macrocosm and mircrocosm is EVERYTHING for this portion of the debate. You said that I couldn't contribute anything philosophically... (though in this debate you say my contribution is what NOT to do).. I argue that on the macrocosm, (you didn't say my contribution on earth or your contribution on earth - the microcosm), you said PHILOSOPHY as whole, the macrocosm. And for this you HAVE to argue an unbound infinity, not those microcosmic arguments you are making, and actually with these microcosmic arguments you are trolling, which is why I constructed the OP EXACTLY the way I constructed it.

Saying that you can't contribute anything philosophically is your position, not mine. Did you get confused?

And where's your reply to the rest of my points? Why are you giving me this nonsense instead? I made four explicit points in my last post, and you haven't replied to any of them. If you think a sentence fragment, unqualified gobledegook about 'an unbound infinity', and calling me a troll constitutes a reply to my points, you'll have to write more than three lines for once and actually develop a full rebuttal, because to me it looks like the ramblings of an average-intelligence troll. I've already replied to your bit about macrocosm vs microcosm- the definition of 'worthwhile' implies particular subjects. An event that is not unique on the 'macrocosmic' level can still be worthwhile to an observer, many observers, perhaps every observer. I've explained this to you three times, and consider that position of yours is refuted. Address the refutation in one of the three places I presented it.

This is a formal debate, and you stand to lose greatly. Shall I list the points of mine that you ignored a third time, or is the above best you're going to do?

You didn't cite your 'factoids' about Einstein or Ghandi, and I'm not concerning myself with them until you do.

Ecmandu wrote:Actually the macrocosm and mircrocosm is EVERYTHING for this portion of the debate. You said that I couldn't contribute anything philosophically... (though in this debate you say my contribution is what NOT to do).. I argue that on the macrocosm, (you didn't say my contribution on earth or your contribution on earth - the microcosm), you said PHILOSOPHY as whole, the macrocosm. And for this you HAVE to argue an unbound infinity, not those microcosmic arguments you are making, and actually with these microcosmic arguments you are trolling, which is why I constructed the OP EXACTLY the way I constructed it.

Saying that you can't contribute anything philosophically is your position, not mine. Did you get confused?

And where's your reply to the rest of my points? Why are you giving me this nonsense instead? I made four explicit points in my last post, and you haven't replied to any of them. If you think a sentence fragment, unqualified gobledegook about 'an unbound infinity', and calling me a troll constitutes a reply to my points, you'll have to write more than three lines for once and actually develop a full rebuttal, because to me it looks like the ramblings of an average-intelligence troll. I've already replied to your bit about macrocosm vs microcosm- the definition of 'worthwhile' implies particular subjects. An event that is not unique on the 'macrocosmic' level can still be worthwhile to an observer, many observers, perhaps every observer. I've explained this to you three times, and consider that position of yours is refuted. Address the refutation in one of the three places I presented it.

This is a formal debate, and you stand to lose greatly. Shall I list the points of mine that you ignored a third time, or is the above best you're going to do?

You didn't cite your 'factoids' about Einstein or Ghandi, and I'm not concerning myself with them until you do.

You completely missed my point, or maybe you know exactly what it means, which is why you are dancing around it. You see, you put me in the position where if I win the votes for this debate I am banned and if I lose the votes I am banned. But you made a mistake in thinking you were so clever. The only way I can win this debate and not be banned, is if I can prove I'm wiser than you but still a fool. I can use the microcosm, you cannot. You said general philosophy, or philosophy in general. You didn't say earthly philosophy. In philosophy in general, there are no new arguments, so I'm not contributing to philosophy in general, and because of infinity, actually NOBODY is... I'm sure that's a hard concept to wrap your head around. MY point is that I can be wiser than you, but still be a fool. And in saying this, I mean, that people are seen as fools (as you defined it) relative to each other on certain things, for the necessary stratification of intellect built into the cosmic structure. Everyone is an idiot, or at least an idiot savant to everyone else. I told you, that I wasn't going to make it easy for you to single me out as the only idiot, if I had to make this argument, and I meant it. I would say to this regard, that you have been somewhat, though not very responsive. Since we have established that the worthwhile is the new, and this never happens, I can prove on the meta (general level) that nothing is worthwhile. And if you decide that II must use the general like you must, I can argue that we're all too foolish to judge this debate, and it becomes a draw (you're as foolish as I am), which also means I can't be banned. I ran the steps of the chess game when you posted the challenge.

My estimation, if that if you were half as smart as you claim to be by the nature of your OP, in having read this whole thread, you'd throw in the towel and let me stay on the boards, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you're not as smart as your OP deems you to be (remember you're the smart one here)... and you will continue this to look more and more the less wise and intelligent. Read the whole thread and think about it.

And Carleas, I want my thread moved from rant to philosophy if I win this debate or it's a draw. I'm assuming it's Uccisore who moved it there, though I could be wrong, but I see nothing rantful about that thread, especially in the context of this debate.

I socialize on Wednesdays, so I won't be writing reply after reply. May only be one or two for the next day or so.

Ecmandu, your impression of the conditions of this debate, the stakes of the debate, and the circumstances that led you to be having this debate is not a part of the debate. So I'm skipping every single thing you wrote about that. Let's see what you actually have of substance remaining to reply to.

I can use the microcosm, you cannot. You said general philosophy, or philosophy in general. You didn't say earthly philosophy. In philosophy in general, there are no new arguments, so I'm not contributing to philosophy in general, and because of infinity, actually NOBODY is...

Here will be my fourth time refuting this, a refutation you have ignored every time:

Your contribution to philosophy is through counter example. You serve as an example of how not to do philosophy. I know your arguments aren't new. They aren't new on the 'macrocosmic' or on the 'microcosmic' level. The greatest, most original idea you ever claimed to have was simply ripped off from Brave New World. I never claimed you were making original arguments in this debate, and the originality of your arguments has nothing to do with the contribution I allege you make to philosophy. People may gain something worthwhile from reading your works, gain an insight in how not to do philosophy, regardless of how unoriginal you are.

MY point is that I can be wiser than you, but still be a fool. And in saying this, I mean, that people are seen as fools (as you defined it) relative to each other on certain things, for the necessary stratification of intellect built into the cosmic structure. Everyone is an idiot, or at least an idiot savant to everyone else.

First of all, you haven't demonstrated this, you've merely claimed it. So I'll expand my refutation which you still haven't addressed. The great thinkers of the world: Isaac Newton, Einstein, Tesla, Aristotle, daVinci, etc. A lot of them were polymaths: they demonstrated an uncanny ability to master any field they put themselves too. Nobody calls these people 'idiots' because they never learned how to repair a broken cotton gin or speak Boontling. We respect their intelligence because, through what they did do, we can see that they would have mastered anything they put their minds to. Similarly, the world contains dullards- people who, through genetics or injury or who-knows-what, are simply dumb. They aren't going to master anything, as we understand mastery. They simply can't think clearly enough about anything to do that. They may be able to get one trade down well enough to earn an income. Maybe not even that. Maybe the one thing they do better than anything else is something they are still mediocre at compared to everyone else in the room. These are the people we call fools, idiots, stupid, etc. (perhaps only when being mean).

I maintain there is insufficient evidence to classify you as one of these- a fool. Do you disagree or not?

And if you decide that II must use the general like you must, I can argue that we're all too foolish to judge this debate, and it becomes a draw (you're as foolish as I am), which also means I can't be banned. I ran the steps of the chess game when you posted the challenge.

Clear evidence that you're intelligent enough to be a troll as opposed to a fool.

Everything else you wrote, including the three followup replies, contains nothing of substance for the debate.

Uccisore wrote:I socialize on Wednesdays, so I won't be writing reply after reply. May only be one or two for the next day or so.

Ecmandu, your impression of the conditions of this debate, the stakes of the debate, and the circumstances that led you to be having this debate is not a part of the debate. So I'm skipping every single thing you wrote about that. Let's see what you actually have of substance remaining to reply to.

I can use the microcosm, you cannot. You said general philosophy, or philosophy in general. You didn't say earthly philosophy. In philosophy in general, there are no new arguments, so I'm not contributing to philosophy in general, and because of infinity, actually NOBODY is...

Here will be my fourth time refuting this, a refutation you have ignored every time:

Your contribution to philosophy is through counter example. You serve as an example of how not to do philosophy. I know your arguments aren't new. They aren't new on the 'macrocosmic' or on the 'microcosmic' level. The greatest, most original idea you ever claimed to have was simply ripped off from Brave New World. I never claimed you were making original arguments in this debate, and originality of your arguments has with the contribution I allege you make to philosophy. People may gain something from reading your works, gain an insight in how not to do philosophy, regardless of how unoriginal you are.

MY point is that I can be wiser than you, but still be a fool. And in saying this, I mean, that people are seen as fools (as you defined it) relative to each other on certain things, for the necessary stratification of intellect built into the cosmic structure. Everyone is an idiot, or at least an idiot savant to everyone else.

First of all, you haven't demonstrated this, you've merely claimed it. All I can do is repeat my refutation. The great thinkers of the world: Isaac Newton, Einstein, Tesla, Aristotle, daVinci, etc. A lot of them were polymaths: they demonstrated an uncanny ability to master any field they put themselves too. Nobody calls these people 'idiots' because they never learned how to repair a broken cotton gin or speak Boontling. We respect their intelligence because, through what they did do, we can see that they would have mastered anything they put their minds to. Similarly, the world contains dullards- people who, through genetics or injury or who-knows-what, are simply dumb. They aren't going to master anything, as we understand mastery. They simply can't think clearly enough about anything to do that. They may be able to get one trade down well enough to earn an income. Maybe not even that. Maybe the one thing they do better than anything else is something they are still mediocre at compared to everyone else in the room. These people are real as well. These are the people we call fools, idiots, stupid, etc. (perhaps only when being mean).

I maintain there is insufficient evidence to classify as one of these- a fool. Do you disagree or not?

And if you decide that II must use the general like you must, I can argue that we're all too foolish to judge this debate, and it becomes a draw (you're as foolish as I am), which also means I can't be banned. I ran the steps of the chess game when you posted the challenge.

Clear evidence that you're intelligent enough to be a troll as opposed to a fool.

Everything else you wrote, including the three followup replies, contains nothing of substance for the debate.

For one, I'm sure there are certain tribes in the northern kalahari desert that would think all your luminaries are morons, idiots and worse. And you keep avoiding the debate, like someone unwiser than me and less intelligent than me, that you are arguing specifics when the perameters of your debate was about general philosophical contributions and general idiocy. I can be more intelligent than you and wiser than you and still have made no philosophic contribution and be a fool by your definition. You see we're mirroring each other... you think you're pretty clever, and this is not off topic for the debate, by setting me up for a situation where if I win or lose the votes I get banned, and then you set it up so you can ridicule me as having made a contribution to philosophy. But you and I and everyone on these boards already knew you needed a HUGE handicap, so we gave you all the cards to hold.

The brave new world does not state that the stratification of motivational system causes increased stress, depression, apathy and agitation in human populations and that this is a cosmic law that neither can be created or destroyed by any hypothetical being. I don't have to argue that this idea is new, to argue that I am wiser than you, even though I'm the first person on earth to formulate it.